Evidence for the Creationist Model

[Tao_Equus]

There have been several threads now that deal with the Creationist vs Evolutionist theories of where life came from. Each of them seems to get bogged down in the details of evolutionary theory and primarily in the question of abiogenesis. This means that the creationist model evades scrutiny.
On this thread I would like to see evidence for Creationist theory presented for debate. It would be good to see the views of supporters from all faiths that hold such a theory represented and justified with empirical evidence to support their ideas.
I look forward to a lively debate.

Regards

TE

[wil]

How about the gang over at OOPARTS? (out of place artifacts)

namaste,

[juantoo3]

Nice collection, wil!

Originally Posted by wil

How about the gang over at OOPARTS? (out of place artifacts)

[Bandit]

i like this one.



1. He´s got the whole world in His hands,
|: He´s got the whole world in His hands, :|
He´s got the whole world in His hands.

2. He´s got the wind and the rain in His hands,
|: He´s got the wind and the rain in His hands, :|
He´s got the whole world in His hands.

3. He´s got the the tiny little baby in His hands,
|: He´s got the the tiny little baby in His hands, :|
He´s got the whole world in His hands.

4. He´s got you and me, brother, in His hands,
|: He´s got you and me, brother, in His hands, :|
He´s got the whole world in His hands.

5. He's got ev'rybody here in His hands.
|: He's got ev'rybody here in His hands. :|
He's got the whole world in His hands.

6. He's got the earth and sky in his hands;
He's got the night and day in his hands;
He's got the sun and moon in his hands;
He´s got the whole world in His hands.

He´s got the whole world in His hands,
|: He´s got the whole world in His hands, :|

[juantoo3]

I suppose I could try to play devil's advocate here. Oooops, is that correct considering the subject? Anyway...

It's difficult to argue a position you don't really believe, even worse a position you do not know or understand. Ever since I began my personal quest, I never really did put a date. Come to think of it, still don't settle on a specific date, just a general timeline. Not unlike other scholars, I suppose. Yet, from the beginning, I have always felt there was a "guiding hand" behind it all. Initially I called this God, referencing from my Christian vantage, and I posited an anthropomorphic intent behind it all. As I have grown older, smarter and hopefully wiser, I no longer see God in an anthropomorphic sense, yet I do still see a guiding hand behind it all.

In the end I suppose I see the science as an attempt to understand how God did things. The two go together, science and God. Interestingly, I find myself in some pretty good company; Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton, among others. Devout, sincere, intellectual, thoughtful, considerate, and fully able to see God in science, even when science denies God.

So, depending what it is that is meant by "creationist model," I suppose in some very discernable way I am a creationist. I just don't think the whole of creation took place in a scant 6 thousand years. (Frankly, I don't think the Bible says so either. There is a lot of nuance overlooked in the first chapter of Genesis... )

[Tao_Equus]

Thanks Will for that link....good site

Originally Posted by juantoo3

In the end I suppose I see the science as an attempt to understand how God did things. The two go together, science and God. Interestingly, I find myself in some pretty good company; Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton, among others. Devout, sincere, intellectual, thoughtful, considerate, and fully able to see God in science, even when science denies God.

So, depending what it is that is meant by "creationist model," I suppose in some very discernable way I am a creationist. I just don't think the whole of creation took place in a scant 6 thousand years. (Frankly, I don't think the Bible says so either. There is a lot of nuance overlooked in the first chapter of Genesis... )

Exactly my own position. I started my life as an out and out athiest like my parents but my love of science led me ever more deeply to the conviction that everything is not here by chance alone. What I can best describe as the 'fine balance' I see no matter where I look creates a series of improbibilities that combine to an impossibility and thus I am left with the conclusion that some tinkering is afoot.

But this 6000 year old Earth, or universe!!, idea is much more ridiculous to my mind than saying it is all indeed just chance. My belief is that the first chapter of Genesis is a simplified explanation that deals quickly and simply with the issue of creation, because it has to be dealt with for the rest to work. And I find it a little sad that so much effort goes into trying to support it word for word.

Anyway....the challenge remains........come on folks......convince me!!! The saying goes 'You can lead a horse to water.....but you cant make it drink'. Well this horse needs a drink and will drink........if the water is Good!!!

Regards

TE

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Thanks Will for that link....good site


But this 6000 year old Earth, or universe!!, idea is much more ridiculous to my mind than saying it is all indeed just chance. My belief is that the first chapter of Genesis is a simplified explanation that deals quickly and simply with the issue of creation, because it has to be dealt with for the rest to work. And I find it a little sad that so much effort goes into trying to support it word for word.

Anyway....the challenge remains........come on folks......convince me!!! The saying goes 'You can lead a horse to water.....but you cant make it drink'. Well this horse needs a drink and will drink........if the water is Good!!!

Regards

TE

of all the creationists here that i know, i dont think you are going to find one who is going to go out of his way try & 'convince' you.
you might get someone to play with it though.
i just found out recently that people believe in a 6000 year old earth & i find that just about as crazy as those who claim billions. no one knows the answer to that.

so Tao, if you dont want to drink it, then drink something different .

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Bandit

of all the creationists here that i know, i dont think you are going to find one who is going to go out of his way try & 'convince' you.
you might get someone to play with it though.
i just found out recently that people believe in a 6000 year old earth & i find that just about as crazy as those who claim billions. no one knows the answer to that.

so Tao, if you dont want to drink it, then drink something different .

'hic', I'l giv ish myy, 'hic', mosht thotfil andsh conshidered, 'hic', erm.............erm.............'hic'...........th ingy!!!


TE

[wil]

of all the creationists here that i know, i dont think you are going to find one who is going to go out of his way try & 'convince' you.

I've got the same quote, except...of all the creationists here that i know, most will go out of their way try & 'convince' you. I find those 6,000 year guys very willing to tell me about instant canyonification, and the heresy that is evolution...

[Bandit]

OIC now. this is about evolutionists trying to convince creationists & making a mockery out of them & out of God.
where have i seen that before

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Bandit

OIC now. this is about evolutionists trying to convince creationists & making a mockery out of them & out of God.
where have i seen that before

lol....good try ....but try putting the shoe on the other foot. As i see it its creationist determination to debunk science that have been bogging down any meaningful discussion of their beliefs. Thats why I started this thread, so that for once we might stop discussing the scientific and focus on the Creationist model. I think it entirely fair.....dont you? There is a debate on the abiogenesis thread for balance, if thats what concerns you.

Regards

TE

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

lol....good try ....but try putting the shoe on the other foot. As i see it its creationist determination to debunk science that have been bogging down any meaningful discussion of their beliefs. Thats why I started this thread, so that for once we might stop discussing the scientific and focus on the Creationist model. I think it entirely fair.....dont you? There is a debate on the abiogenesis thread for balance, if thats what concerns you.

Regards

TE

i am not concerned about any of it

like i said... the same old debate

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Bandit

i am not concerned about any of it

like i said... the same old debate

I bet it is an old debate!! Dare i say well over 6000yrs old?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

lol....good try ....but try putting the shoe on the other foot. As i see it its creationist determination to debunk science that have been bogging down any meaningful discussion of their beliefs. Thats why I started this thread, so that for once we might stop discussing the scientific and focus on the Creationist model. I think it entirely fair.....dont you? There is a debate on the abiogenesis thread for balance, if thats what concerns you.

I can understand your concern, I have touched on it elsewhere a number of times: this, specifically, is a religious argument. Both sides feel threatened, both sides feel a threat to their respective political constituencies, and both sides are not above using...ummmm...artful ways and means of achieving their ends. Both sides it seems to me are at ease in contorting the facts to fit their dogma and doctrine, while heatedly pointing fingers at the other and accusing of deceptive tactics. There is a lot, a whole lot, of "pot calling the kettle black" going on between Christianity specifically and evolutionary biology specifically.

No doubt a lot dates back to the Higher Critical movement, which predates Darwin by what?, about a hundred years or so. It is a movement that seems to have as its motivation the rationalization of, and global indoctrination of atheism. To a large extent it has been successful. Somehow that movement settled into science and began an outright attack on religion in general and Christianity specifically, that settled in Darwinian evolution where it remains most deeply entrenched. In Europe, a blind eye may have been turned towards these events, the atheists even gaining a degree of sympathy. But in the heartland of America, such a direct challenge to the faith and sensibilities of the masses was not accepted lightly. A gauntlet was thrown down, and the battles are still waged to this day.

This is not about whether or not God is behind any of this. This is about political sway over the masses. Just as religious war has been throughout history. This is about whose God is going to win.

My two cents.

[sara[h]ng]

To get back to Tao's original post, I would like to point out that the only response that a creationist has given is a link to the Ooparts site, which, while some individual cases in the site may truly be anomalies, the majority of it appears to be either false or irrelevant in the discussion of evolution.

On top of that, it seems that the only scientific parts of creationist arguments are not, in fact, proof for creationism, but negative proof for evolution; not the same thing.

- Sarah